Can Obama Keep His Generals In Check In The War Against Isis?

[Samson]

If Bush had put the 250,000 boots on the ground when we went in to Iraq in the first place, and if he had listened to his generals on this, we would not be in this mess today.....

When Germany was defeated, we did not leave (we still haven't). No radical Germans have attempted to violently create a "Nazi State."

When Japan was defeated, we did not leave (we still haven't). No radical Japanese have attempted to violently create a "Imperial State."

When S. Korea was rescued, we did not leave (we still haven't). No radical South Koreans have attempted to violently create a "Communist State."

Clearly, creating a successful nation after defeating an unsuccessful nation requires a very long term commitment of resources and a presence.

The USA somehow ignored this clarity in Iraq, despite the MANY cases, (e.g., practically every nation in Africa and South America) of early withdrawal resulting in anarchy.

I would have been astonished had ISIL not formed. I will also be amazed if anything called "Iraq" is on a globe 20 years from now.

 

[deltex1]

He wants to get the muslims to feel good about killing each other, while he claims credit. It's like the girl getting the boys to fight over her cherry...the boys suspecting all along that the cherry is not there...only a small set of balls.

Interesting analogy, if you're a goat.

Eventually if things go right, all the muzzie goats will be goat burgers.

 

[Plasmaball]

If Bush had put the 250,000 boots on the ground when we went in to Iraq in the first place, and if he had listened to his generals on this, we would not be in this mess today.....

When Germany was defeated, we did not leave (we still haven't). No radical Germans have attempted to violently create a "Nazi State."

When Japan was defeated, we did not leave (we still haven't). No radical Japanese have attempted to violently create a "Imperial State."

When S. Korea was rescued, we did not leave (we still haven't). No radical South Koreans have attempted to violently create a "Communist State."

Clearly, creating a successful nation after defeating an unsuccessful nation requires a very long term commitment of resources and a presence.

The USA somehow ignored this clarity in Iraq, despite the MANY cases, (e.g., practically every nation in Africa and South America) of early withdrawal resulting in anarchy.

I would have been astonished had ISIL not formed. I will also be amazed if anything called "Iraq" is on a globe 20 years from now.

Germany is not the middleeast
Japan is not the middleeast
S. Korea may not but you still have N. Korea to deal with.

No we knew we had to stay in Iraq longer, the neo-cons were pushing for it. 50 years or more.

 

[Samson]

If Bush had put the 250,000 boots on the ground when we went in to Iraq in the first place, and if he had listened to his generals on this, we would not be in this mess today.....

When Germany was defeated, we did not leave (we still haven't). No radical Germans have attempted to violently create a "Nazi State."

When Japan was defeated, we did not leave (we still haven't). No radical Japanese have attempted to violently create a "Imperial State."

When S. Korea was rescued, we did not leave (we still haven't). No radical South Koreans have attempted to violently create a "Communist State."

Clearly, creating a successful nation after defeating an unsuccessful nation requires a very long term commitment of resources and a presence.

The USA somehow ignored this clarity in Iraq, despite the MANY cases, (e.g., practically every nation in Africa and South America) of early withdrawal resulting in anarchy.

I would have been astonished had ISIL not formed. I will also be amazed if anything called "Iraq" is on a globe 20 years from now.

Germany is not the middleeast
Japan is not the middleeast
S. Korea may not but you still have N. Korea to deal with.

No we knew we had to stay in Iraq longer, the neo-cons were pushing for it. 50 years or more.

Thanks for the fabulously accurate demonstration of your firm grasp on geography....

Was there a point?

 

[Plasmaball]

If Bush had put the 250,000 boots on the ground when we went in to Iraq in the first place, and if he had listened to his generals on this, we would not be in this mess today.....

When Germany was defeated, we did not leave (we still haven't). No radical Germans have attempted to violently create a "Nazi State."

When Japan was defeated, we did not leave (we still haven't). No radical Japanese have attempted to violently create a "Imperial State."

When S. Korea was rescued, we did not leave (we still haven't). No radical South Koreans have attempted to violently create a "Communist State."

Clearly, creating a successful nation after defeating an unsuccessful nation requires a very long term commitment of resources and a presence.

The USA somehow ignored this clarity in Iraq, despite the MANY cases, (e.g., practically every nation in Africa and South America) of early withdrawal resulting in anarchy.

I would have been astonished had ISIL not formed. I will also be amazed if anything called "Iraq" is on a globe 20 years from now.

Germany is not the middleeast
Japan is not the middleeast
S. Korea may not but you still have N. Korea to deal with.

No we knew we had to stay in Iraq longer, the neo-cons were pushing for it. 50 years or more.

Thanks for the fabulously accurate demonstration of your firm grasp on geography....

Was there a point?

at the end

 

[Samson]

No we knew we had to stay in Iraq longer, the neo-cons were pushing for it. 50 years or more.

So despite the obvious "we knew we had to stay longer," and the "pushing" from "neo-cons." the US did not stay longer.

Once again, you have some sort of point?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I don't know how far is too far to let isis go. These generals don't seem in the mood to put up with much more. If isis poses a direct danger these generals could well replace obama and take care of business themselves.

Because the Generals do not see the issue through the eyes of a politician.
The Generals are directly responsible for the lives of American sons and daughters. And they know that the longer politicians folly around and play politics - the more embedded/emboldened and organized the enemy gets. And when the time comes, the more sons and daughters die.
To Obama, and not just him, politics and his own idealism acts as blinders and takes precedent over the lives of soldiers. Something politicians have been doing for many years.

 

[Care4all]

If Bush had put the 250,000 boots on the ground when we went in to Iraq in the first place, and if he had listened to his generals on this, we would not be in this mess today.....

When Germany was defeated, we did not leave (we still haven't). No radical Germans have attempted to violently create a "Nazi State."

When Japan was defeated, we did not leave (we still haven't). No radical Japanese have attempted to violently create a "Imperial State."

When S. Korea was rescued, we did not leave (we still haven't). No radical South Koreans have attempted to violently create a "Communist State."

Clearly, creating a successful nation after defeating an unsuccessful nation requires a very long term commitment of resources and a presence.

The USA somehow ignored this clarity in Iraq, despite the MANY cases, (e.g., practically every nation in Africa and South America) of early withdrawal resulting in anarchy.

I would have been astonished had ISIL not formed. I will also be amazed if anything called "Iraq" is on a globe 20 years from now.

Maybe you would have been astonished but looks like Rumsfeld thought it would be faster than lightening Samson....that's what WE WERE TOLD....

There will be no World War III starting with Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declared Thursday, and rejected concerns that a war would be a quagmire.

"The idea that it's going to be a long, long, long battle of some kind I think is belied by the fact of what happened in 1990," he said on an Infinity Radio call-in program.
He said the U.S. military is stronger than it was during the Persian Gulf War, while Iraq's armed forces are weaker.
"Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that," he said. "It won't be a World War III."

Meanwhile, two Iraqi state-controlled papers, Al-Thawra and Al-Iraq, condemned the Security Council resolution that Iraq accepted Wednesday, with Al-Thawra saying it could be the worst motion on Iraq that the world body had ever passed....

And, as U.N. weapons inspectors prepare for their return to Iraq, the White House is warning Baghdad not to "play games."

In the words of Deputy Press Secretary Scott McClellan, Saddam Hussein "better not go back to his history of cheat and retreat, and deceive and deny, and playing rope-a-dope in the desert."...

The weapons inspectors are to resume their search for illegal caches by Dec. 23 and are to report to the Security Council 60 days after they start looking. Iraq has until Dec. 8 to give a full accounting of all its banned weapons programs as well as programs to develop long-range missiles and remote-controlled aircraft to deliver them.

Rumsfeld also told radio listeners it is impossible Iraq does not have weapons of mass destruction. "What it would prove is that the inspections process had been successfully defeated by the Iraqis if they find nothing."

The conflict with Iraq is about weapons of mass destruction, Rumsfeld insisted.

"It has nothing to do with oil, literally nothing to do with oil. It has nothing to do with the religion."


"People say 'Where's the smoking gun?' Well, we don't want to see a smoking gun from a weapon of mass destruction," he said. "With a weapon of mass destruction you're not talking about 300 people or 3,000 people being killed, but 30,000 or a hundred thousand."

Rumsfeld said the U.S. military at present is capable "to do the job and finish it fast.

"There is absolutely no need for the present for us to even think about returning to a draft."

The newspaper Al-Iraq defended the government's decision to accept the resolution. Earlier this week, Iraq's parliament, which is packed with pro-government legislators, recommended it be rejected.

"Iraq's acceptance of the resolution is an attempt to save our people from any harm. This is the most important thing," Al-Iraq said Friday.

Al-Thawra, the organ of the ruling Baath party, said the resolution was "ill-intentioned, unjust and bad resolution."

"In fact, it could be the worst resolution ever issued against our country. It represents a breach of the U.N. Charter," the paper said in a front-page editorial.

Rumsfeld It Would Be A Short War - CBS News

WE WERE as clueless THEN, as we are now...or even more so, don't ya think?

 

[Plasmaball]

No we knew we had to stay in Iraq longer, the neo-cons were pushing for it. 50 years or more.

So despite the obvious "we knew we had to stay longer," and the "pushing" from "neo-cons." the US did not stay longer.

Once again, you have some sort of point?

yes

 

[Samson]

If Bush had put the 250,000 boots on the ground when we went in to Iraq in the first place, and if he had listened to his generals on this, we would not be in this mess today.....

When Germany was defeated, we did not leave (we still haven't). No radical Germans have attempted to violently create a "Nazi State."

When Japan was defeated, we did not leave (we still haven't). No radical Japanese have attempted to violently create a "Imperial State."

When S. Korea was rescued, we did not leave (we still haven't). No radical South Koreans have attempted to violently create a "Communist State."

Clearly, creating a successful nation after defeating an unsuccessful nation requires a very long term commitment of resources and a presence.

The USA somehow ignored this clarity in Iraq, despite the MANY cases, (e.g., practically every nation in Africa and South America) of early withdrawal resulting in anarchy.

I would have been astonished had ISIL not formed. I will also be amazed if anything called "Iraq" is on a globe 20 years from now.

Maybe you would have been astonished but looks like Rumsfeld thought it would be faster than lightening Samson....that's what WE WERE TOLD....

There will be no World War III starting with Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declared Thursday, and rejected concerns that a war would be a quagmire.

"The idea that it's going to be a long, long, long battle of some kind I think is belied by the fact of what happened in 1990," he said on an Infinity Radio call-in program.

He said the U.S. military is stronger than it was during the Persian Gulf War, while Iraq's armed forces are weaker.

"Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that," he said. "It won't be a World War III."

Meanwhile, two Iraqi state-controlled papers, Al-Thawra and Al-Iraq, condemned the Security Council resolution that Iraq accepted Wednesday, with Al-Thawra saying it could be the worst motion on Iraq that the world body had ever passed....

And, as U.N. weapons inspectors prepare for their return to Iraq, the White House is warning Baghdad not to "play games."

In the words of Deputy Press Secretary Scott McClellan, Saddam Hussein "better not go back to his history of cheat and retreat, and deceive and deny, and playing rope-a-dope in the desert."...

The weapons inspectors are to resume their search for illegal caches by Dec. 23 and are to report to the Security Council 60 days after they start looking. Iraq has until Dec. 8 to give a full accounting of all its banned weapons programs as well as programs to develop long-range missiles and remote-controlled aircraft to deliver them.

Rumsfeld also told radio listeners it is impossible Iraq does not have weapons of mass destruction. "What it would prove is that the inspections process had been successfully defeated by the Iraqis if they find nothing."

The conflict with Iraq is about weapons of mass destruction, Rumsfeld insisted.

"It has nothing to do with oil, literally nothing to do with oil. It has nothing to do with the religion."


"People say 'Where's the smoking gun?' Well, we don't want to see a smoking gun from a weapon of mass destruction," he said. "With a weapon of mass destruction you're not talking about 300 people or 3,000 people being killed, but 30,000 or a hundred thousand."

Rumsfeld said the U.S. military at present is capable "to do the job and finish it fast.

"There is absolutely no need for the present for us to even think about returning to a draft."

The newspaper Al-Iraq defended the government's decision to accept the resolution. Earlier this week, Iraq's parliament, which is packed with pro-government legislators, recommended it be rejected.

"Iraq's acceptance of the resolution is an attempt to save our people from any harm. This is the most important thing," Al-Iraq said Friday.

Al-Thawra, the organ of the ruling Baath party, said the resolution was "ill-intentioned, unjust and bad resolution."

"In fact, it could be the worst resolution ever issued against our country. It represents a breach of the U.N. Charter," the paper said in a front-page editorial.

Rumsfeld It Would Be A Short War - CBS News

WE WERE as clueless THEN, as we are now...or even more so, don't ya think?

We?

No. I never believed anything so ludicrous that stabilizing Iraq would be easier than stabilizing post WWII Japan or Germany. Nor did I believe anything as ridiculous as the combat ever approaching anything like it was during that War: And it wasn't, which is what Rumsfield was talking about

Continue to draw non-contextual conclusions from cut-n-past, and you'll need to change your name to Political Chick.

 

[dilloduck]

The actual war was over quickly. The peace is what still has never been secured. I'm not sure a stable Iraq was ever the goal anyway. It would be a treat to Israel which is exactly what we don't want.

 

[Care4all]

If Bush had put the 250,000 boots on the ground when we went in to Iraq in the first place, and if he had listened to his generals on this, we would not be in this mess today.....

When Germany was defeated, we did not leave (we still haven't). No radical Germans have attempted to violently create a "Nazi State."

When Japan was defeated, we did not leave (we still haven't). No radical Japanese have attempted to violently create a "Imperial State."

When S. Korea was rescued, we did not leave (we still haven't). No radical South Koreans have attempted to violently create a "Communist State."

Clearly, creating a successful nation after defeating an unsuccessful nation requires a very long term commitment of resources and a presence.

The USA somehow ignored this clarity in Iraq, despite the MANY cases, (e.g., practically every nation in Africa and South America) of early withdrawal resulting in anarchy.

I would have been astonished had ISIL not formed. I will also be amazed if anything called "Iraq" is on a globe 20 years from now.

Maybe you would have been astonished but looks like Rumsfeld thought it would be faster than lightening Samson....that's what WE WERE TOLD....

There will be no World War III starting with Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declared Thursday, and rejected concerns that a war would be a quagmire.

"The idea that it's going to be a long, long, long battle of some kind I think is belied by the fact of what happened in 1990," he said on an Infinity Radio call-in program.

He said the U.S. military is stronger than it was during the Persian Gulf War, while Iraq's armed forces are weaker.

"Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that," he said. "It won't be a World War III."

Meanwhile, two Iraqi state-controlled papers, Al-Thawra and Al-Iraq, condemned the Security Council resolution that Iraq accepted Wednesday, with Al-Thawra saying it could be the worst motion on Iraq that the world body had ever passed....

And, as U.N. weapons inspectors prepare for their return to Iraq, the White House is warning Baghdad not to "play games."

In the words of Deputy Press Secretary Scott McClellan, Saddam Hussein "better not go back to his history of cheat and retreat, and deceive and deny, and playing rope-a-dope in the desert."...

The weapons inspectors are to resume their search for illegal caches by Dec. 23 and are to report to the Security Council 60 days after they start looking. Iraq has until Dec. 8 to give a full accounting of all its banned weapons programs as well as programs to develop long-range missiles and remote-controlled aircraft to deliver them.

Rumsfeld also told radio listeners it is impossible Iraq does not have weapons of mass destruction. "What it would prove is that the inspections process had been successfully defeated by the Iraqis if they find nothing."

The conflict with Iraq is about weapons of mass destruction, Rumsfeld insisted.

"It has nothing to do with oil, literally nothing to do with oil. It has nothing to do with the religion."


"People say 'Where's the smoking gun?' Well, we don't want to see a smoking gun from a weapon of mass destruction," he said. "With a weapon of mass destruction you're not talking about 300 people or 3,000 people being killed, but 30,000 or a hundred thousand."

Rumsfeld said the U.S. military at present is capable "to do the job and finish it fast.

"There is absolutely no need for the present for us to even think about returning to a draft."

The newspaper Al-Iraq defended the government's decision to accept the resolution. Earlier this week, Iraq's parliament, which is packed with pro-government legislators, recommended it be rejected.

"Iraq's acceptance of the resolution is an attempt to save our people from any harm. This is the most important thing," Al-Iraq said Friday.

Al-Thawra, the organ of the ruling Baath party, said the resolution was "ill-intentioned, unjust and bad resolution."

"In fact, it could be the worst resolution ever issued against our country. It represents a breach of the U.N. Charter," the paper said in a front-page editorial.

Rumsfeld It Would Be A Short War - CBS News

WE WERE as clueless THEN, as we are now...or even more so, don't ya think?

We?

No. I never believed anything so ludicrous that stabilizing Iraq would be easier than stabilizing post WWII Japan or Germany. Nor did I believe anything as ridiculous as the combat ever approaching anything like it was during that War: And it wasn't, which is what Rumsfield was talking about

Continue to draw non-contextual conclusions from cut-n-past, and you'll need to change your name to Political Chick.

you need to read the whole article and listen to his interview to get the WHOLE picture of what Rumsfeld was asked and replying to Samson....

And we did not leave soldiers there after Iraq war 1 and he said we were IN A BETTER POSITION THAN THEN....so think what you want, but Rumsfeld thought Iraq would not be the QUAGMIRE that it turned out to be, and he lead most everybody here in the USA, to believe such...........

HOW MANY US Soldiers died after the wars in Germany, Japan and South/north Korea etc, while stationed there ''keeping the Peace'' compared to Iraq Sampson? Our guys were being killed till the very end of our retreat....

 

[JakeStarkey]

Neo-cons have not a clue about nation reconstruction.

Iraq is neither Germany nor Japan. Shinseki was right, Runfsfeld wrong, and Bush listened to Darth Cheney.

And here we are.

 

[Samson]

Neo-cons have not a clue about nation reconstruction.

Iraq is neither Germany nor Japan. Shinseki was right, Runfsfeld wrong, and Bush listened to Darth Cheney.

And here we are.

Bush?

Congress approved the invasion of Iraq.

Accusing Bush of policy failures 6 years after his presidency really only makes the Community Organizer look more incompetent.

 

[Samson]

HOW MANY US Soldiers died after the wars in Germany, Japan and South/north Korea etc, while stationed there ''keeping the Peace'' compared to Iraq Sampson? Our guys were being killed till the very end of our retreat....

Well, I agree it probably would have been better had we dropped a couple of atom bombs on Iraq to help settle the situation, but we probably would have scratched a mosque or two.

But the fact is, compared to WWII, US casualties in Iraq were insignificant during and after major combat operations.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Probably already covered but we need to be careful what we wish for. It was Reagan's idiotic belief that al Qaeda were freedom fighters that started this (also voted on by both parties). We need to learn from our mistakes instead of making the same ones again.

We learned that we could not win in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan. Why would we want to continue to use

19th century weapons in a 21st century war against a very small group of 10th century thugs?

But, it won't matter what President Obama does. The right will just lie about it.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Samson]

Probably already covered but we need to be careful what we wish for. It was Reagan's idiotic belief that al Qaeda were freedom fighters that started this (also voted on by both parties). We need to learn from our mistakes instead of making the same ones again.

We learned that we could not win in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan. Why would we want to continue to use

19th century weapons in a 21st century war against a very small group of 10th century thugs?

But, it won't matter what President Obama does. The right will just lie about it.

Reagan's mistake was not blaming everything on Kennedy.

 

[Care4all]

HOW MANY US Soldiers died after the wars in Germany, Japan and South/north Korea etc, while stationed there ''keeping the Peace'' compared to Iraq Sampson? Our guys were being killed till the very end of our retreat....

Well, I agree it probably would have been better had we dropped a couple of atom bombs on Iraq to help settle the situation, but we probably would have scratched a mosque or two.

But the fact is, compared to WWII, US casualties in Iraq were insignificant during and after major combat operations.

Our casualties were low, because of modern day Medical Practices, we saved lives of soldiers that would have died in Viet Nam and WWI and WWII, but that leaves us with 30,000 maimed and injured if Memory serves....

And how can several thousand deaths be insignificant, in any manor....when we've got MOST from the right side of the aisle having tizzy fits over an Ambassador and 3 others dying, 4 people who volunteered to be in the dangerous region, while Soldiers were commanded to go there, by their political representation and President??? ( i know you were just comparing Samson)

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Probably already covered but we need to be careful what we wish for. It was Reagan's idiotic belief that al Qaeda were freedom fighters that started this (also voted on by both parties). We need to learn from our mistakes instead of making the same ones again.

We learned that we could not win in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan. Why would we want to continue to use

19th century weapons in a 21st century war against a very small group of 10th century thugs?

But, it won't matter what President Obama does. The right will just lie about it.

Reagan's mistake was not blaming everything on Kennedy.

When did Ronnie Ray-Gun ever take responsibility for anything he did? One of our worst presidents and so, of course, a darling of the low-info RWs.